APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?

[Anonymous]

Seriously can't wait until Thursday. Maybe Jeff will lock this thread after that. It's certainly not on topic anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now I’ve been called daft, a liar, old, and responsible for the mess APS is in. Nothing lends credibility to an argument like ad hominem attacks.

That's right. All 104 pages of this thread are composed of the words "daft", "liar", and "old" over and over again. No substantive arguments to be found here. Just 100 pages of name-calling.

Good thing too, because if there were some comment of substance in here somewhere you'd have to like read it or understand it or something, and then wonder if it plays some role in why people are calling you daft.

Shockingly, I’m focused on those words because they were the ones directed specifically at me in response to my comment. I don’t know why you’re fighting with me. I’m not part of the anti-move crew so I’m not sure what substantive argument it is you want me to make so you can insult me some more. Do I care about the issue as much as you? No. Do the majority of Arlingtonians? No. My point was and remains that the insults and name-calling are distasteful and unnecessary.

After all of the drama THAT is your only (off-topic) point on this thread? Way to focus on the important issues.

I‘ll leave the important issues to you.

[Anonymous]

The Key No Moves Data Dude* is running for school board and has signed a letter asking the SB to not move on the move. Here's some of it:

We write today representing a larger group of concerned parents of Arlington Public School (APS) students. Like hundreds of other parents, I urge you not to take further action on the Superintendent’s recommendations for school moves, which is scheduled for a full Board vote on February 6, 2020. The Superintendent’s proposal seeks to move both option and neighborhood schools, resulting in the relocation of thousands of APS elementary school students, ahead of a planned boundary change for elementary schools across Arlington in 2020. While the proposal is phrased as a “pre-boundary phase,” it is, in reality, a boundary change both because of the number of students moved and because the moves will require boundaries to be changed. In fact, the proposal to move schools has been presented side-by-side with a proposal that does not move schools, but changes boundaries. And because this pre-boundary phrase has not complied with the boundary phase process codified in Arlington School Board Policy B-2.1

*I think this name is descriptive without being disparaging. Also, I'm not using his name but guess that would be ok since he's running for office.

[Anonymous]

Actually, this is probably the pull-quote:

Therefore, we respectfully request that you *cease and desist* any further action on the Superintendent’s school moves proposal until APS follows the procedures for a boundary change outlined in Arlington School Board Policy B-2.1, Boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Key No Moves Data Dude* is running for school board and has signed a letter asking the SB to not move on the move. Here's some of it:

We write today representing a larger group of concerned parents of Arlington Public School (APS) students. Like hundreds of other parents, I urge you not to take further action on the Superintendent’s recommendations for school moves, which is scheduled for a full Board vote on February 6, 2020. The Superintendent’s proposal seeks to move both option and neighborhood schools, resulting in the relocation of thousands of APS elementary school students, ahead of a planned boundary change for elementary schools across Arlington in 2020. While the proposal is phrased as a “pre-boundary phase,” it is, in reality, a boundary change both because of the number of students moved and because the moves will require boundaries to be changed. In fact, the proposal to move schools has been presented side-by-side with a proposal that does not move schools, but changes boundaries. And because this pre-boundary phrase has not complied with the boundary phase process codified in Arlington School Board Policy B-2.1

*I think this name is descriptive without being disparaging. Also, I'm not using his name but guess that would be ok since he's running for office.

OMG - this guy has spammed me 3x time. Each time you send me an email I'm less likely to vote for you!

[Anonymous]

He may be right. If they were just switching ATS with Key they could say it’s an option location issue, but declaring that all of McKinley’s planning units are being reassigned sounds more like a boundary change. What procedural defect is being claimed? Even though they’ve called it not a boundary process, it does seem like they’ve given tons of notice and opportunity to comment etc., and presumably that’s basically what is required. That, and a school board vote. The proposed swap was procedurally defective because they let the superintendent declare it a go, when it probably qualified as a boundary change thus necessitating a school board vote. Does the failure to call it a boundary decision create a problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He may be right. If they were just switching ATS with Key they could say it’s an option location issue, but declaring that all of McKinley’s planning units are being reassigned sounds more like a boundary change. What procedural defect is being claimed? Even though they’ve called it not a boundary process, it does seem like they’ve given tons of notice and opportunity to comment etc., and presumably that’s basically what is required. That, and a school board vote. The proposed swap was procedurally defective because they let the superintendent declare it a go, when it probably qualified as a boundary change thus necessitating a school board vote. Does the failure to call it a boundary decision create a problem?

Here's what the policy says you need to do for a boundary change:

When the Superintendent has determined that one or more of the conditions above exists and that boundary changes should be considered, the Superintendent shall recommend to the SchoolBoard the process for consideration of boundary changes. The recommended framework shall include:

1.The proposed schedule for the boundary change process,
2.Identification of the schools and communities to be affected, and
3.A community engagement plan and process to keep affected schools and communities informed throughout the consideration of boundary changes.

The School Board shall act on the recommendation

So yeah, they've done that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Key No Moves Data Dude* is running for school board and has signed a letter asking the SB to not move on the move. Here's some of it:

We write today representing a larger group of concerned parents of Arlington Public School (APS) students. Like hundreds of other parents, I urge you not to take further action on the Superintendent’s recommendations for school moves, which is scheduled for a full Board vote on February 6, 2020. The Superintendent’s proposal seeks to move both option and neighborhood schools, resulting in the relocation of thousands of APS elementary school students, ahead of a planned boundary change for elementary schools across Arlington in 2020. While the proposal is phrased as a “pre-boundary phase,” it is, in reality, a boundary change both because of the number of students moved and because the moves will require boundaries to be changed. In fact, the proposal to move schools has been presented side-by-side with a proposal that does not move schools, but changes boundaries. And because this pre-boundary phrase has not complied with the boundary phase process codified in Arlington School Board Policy B-2.1

*I think this name is descriptive without being disparaging. Also, I'm not using his name but guess that would be ok since he's running for office.

I guess he missed that his own proposals would reassign half of McKinley's current students, while moving McKinley to Reed allows three-quarters of its students to stay together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He may be right. If they were just switching ATS with Key they could say it’s an option location issue, but declaring that all of McKinley’s planning units are being reassigned sounds more like a boundary change. What procedural defect is being claimed? Even though they’ve called it not a boundary process, it does seem like they’ve given tons of notice and opportunity to comment etc., and presumably that’s basically what is required. That, and a school board vote. The proposed swap was procedurally defective because they let the superintendent declare it a go, when it probably qualified as a boundary change thus necessitating a school board vote. Does the failure to call it a boundary decision create a problem?

Here's what the policy says you need to do for a boundary change:

When the Superintendent has determined that one or more of the conditions above exists and that boundary changes should be considered, the Superintendent shall recommend to the SchoolBoard the process for consideration of boundary changes. The recommended framework shall include:

1.The proposed schedule for the boundary change process,
2.Identification of the schools and communities to be affected, and
3.A community engagement plan and process to keep affected schools and communities informed throughout the consideration of boundary changes.

The School Board shall act on the recommendation

So yeah, they've done that.

The one question I have is why they’ve refused to call this a boundary change. Are there annoying procedural requirements you can avoid by treating it as something other than a boundary process? Or maybe they’re just trying to be very clear about this being a 2-step process. I’m not familiar enough with school board rules to know if they were trying to bypass something or if this really is just semantics. Aside from calling it not a boundary change, they seem to have followed the rule quoted above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Key No Moves Data Dude* is running for school board and has signed a letter asking the SB to not move on the move. Here's some of it:

We write today representing a larger group of concerned parents of Arlington Public School (APS) students. Like hundreds of other parents, I urge you not to take further action on the Superintendent’s recommendations for school moves, which is scheduled for a full Board vote on February 6, 2020. The Superintendent’s proposal seeks to move both option and neighborhood schools, resulting in the relocation of thousands of APS elementary school students, ahead of a planned boundary change for elementary schools across Arlington in 2020. While the proposal is phrased as a “pre-boundary phase,” it is, in reality, a boundary change both because of the number of students moved and because the moves will require boundaries to be changed. In fact, the proposal to move schools has been presented side-by-side with a proposal that does not move schools, but changes boundaries. And because this pre-boundary phrase has not complied with the boundary phase process codified in Arlington School Board Policy B-2.1

*I think this name is descriptive without being disparaging. Also, I'm not using his name but guess that would be ok since he's running for office.

I guess he missed that his own proposals would reassign half of McKinley's current students, while moving McKinley to Reed allows three-quarters of its students to stay together.

Who ever said 3/4 would stay together? I've never seen that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Key No Moves Data Dude* is running for school board and has signed a letter asking the SB to not move on the move. Here's some of it:

We write today representing a larger group of concerned parents of Arlington Public School (APS) students. Like hundreds of other parents, I urge you not to take further action on the Superintendent’s recommendations for school moves, which is scheduled for a full Board vote on February 6, 2020. The Superintendent’s proposal seeks to move both option and neighborhood schools, resulting in the relocation of thousands of APS elementary school students, ahead of a planned boundary change for elementary schools across Arlington in 2020. While the proposal is phrased as a “pre-boundary phase,” it is, in reality, a boundary change both because of the number of students moved and because the moves will require boundaries to be changed. In fact, the proposal to move schools has been presented side-by-side with a proposal that does not move schools, but changes boundaries. And because this pre-boundary phrase has not complied with the boundary phase process codified in Arlington School Board Policy B-2.1

*I think this name is descriptive without being disparaging. Also, I'm not using his name but guess that would be ok since he's running for office.

I guess he missed that his own proposals would reassign half of McKinley's current students, while moving McKinley to Reed allows three-quarters of its students to stay together.

Who ever said 3/4 would stay together? I've never seen that.

The staff's 11/26 spreadsheet has hypothetical school assignments that would send at least 595 current McKinley students to Reed. That's out of 782 current McKinley students, so 76% moving together. The same spreadsheet also suggests that even more current McKinley PUs may be assigned or at least grandfathered to Reed as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He may be right. If they were just switching ATS with Key they could say it’s an option location issue, but declaring that all of McKinley’s planning units are being reassigned sounds more like a boundary change. What procedural defect is being claimed? Even though they’ve called it not a boundary process, it does seem like they’ve given tons of notice and opportunity to comment etc., and presumably that’s basically what is required. That, and a school board vote. The proposed swap was procedurally defective because they let the superintendent declare it a go, when it probably qualified as a boundary change thus necessitating a school board vote. Does the failure to call it a boundary decision create a problem?

Here's what the policy says you need to do for a boundary change:

When the Superintendent has determined that one or more of the conditions above exists and that boundary changes should be considered, the Superintendent shall recommend to the SchoolBoard the process for consideration of boundary changes. The recommended framework shall include:

1.The proposed schedule for the boundary change process,
2.Identification of the schools and communities to be affected, and
3.A community engagement plan and process to keep affected schools and communities informed throughout the consideration of boundary changes.

The School Board shall act on the recommendation

So yeah, they've done that.

The one question I have is why they’ve refused to call this a boundary change. Are there annoying procedural requirements you can avoid by treating it as something other than a boundary process? Or maybe they’re just trying to be very clear about this being a 2-step process. I’m not familiar enough with school board rules to know if they were trying to bypass something or if this really is just semantics. Aside from calling it not a boundary change, they seem to have followed the rule quoted above.

It’s because they are doing it as a two-phase process. First, they decide where all of the neighborhood schools will be second. Second, they draw boundaries for those neighborhood schools. The staff and SB have been crystal clear about this all along, despite the disingenuous efforts of some people to try to paint it otherwise.

[Anonymous]

I think they are saying moving schools is step one of the boundary change and nailing down the units is step 2. They are both part of the boundary process, but they are emphasizing that we are not talking about individual unit movements right now, just big picture locations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He may be right. If they were just switching ATS with Key they could say it’s an option location issue, but declaring that all of McKinley’s planning units are being reassigned sounds more like a boundary change. What procedural defect is being claimed? Even though they’ve called it not a boundary process, it does seem like they’ve given tons of notice and opportunity to comment etc., and presumably that’s basically what is required. That, and a school board vote. The proposed swap was procedurally defective because they let the superintendent declare it a go, when it probably qualified as a boundary change thus necessitating a school board vote. Does the failure to call it a boundary decision create a problem?

The swap would not have been a boundary change because ASFS' boundary would have remained the same. They just would have gone to a different building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He may be right. If they were just switching ATS with Key they could say it’s an option location issue, but declaring that all of McKinley’s planning units are being reassigned sounds more like a boundary change. What procedural defect is being claimed? Even though they’ve called it not a boundary process, it does seem like they’ve given tons of notice and opportunity to comment etc., and presumably that’s basically what is required. That, and a school board vote. The proposed swap was procedurally defective because they let the superintendent declare it a go, when it probably qualified as a boundary change thus necessitating a school board vote. Does the failure to call it a boundary decision create a problem?

Here's what the policy says you need to do for a boundary change:

When the Superintendent has determined that one or more of the conditions above exists and that boundary changes should be considered, the Superintendent shall recommend to the SchoolBoard the process for consideration of boundary changes. The recommended framework shall include:

1.The proposed schedule for the boundary change process,
2.Identification of the schools and communities to be affected, and
3.A community engagement plan and process to keep affected schools and communities informed throughout the consideration of boundary changes.

The School Board shall act on the recommendation

So yeah, they've done that.

Hmmm.... a community engagement plan and process to keep communities informed - nothing about having to solicit input..... hmmm... I'd say they've done MORE than required!